So, this means Prince has been proven wrong once again.

Well, that's horrible news. The general public needs to be more informed of some of these blogs where they can download it for free.

One little unit goes up and they want to celebrate. Album sales are still horrible and no where NEAR what they use to be.

CDs should be much cheaper. They make a huge profit with CDs, the cost of manufacturing is pretty low compared to vinyl and they are ridiculously overpriced. I still buy CDs but much less than I used to. If CDs were cheaper, more people would keep buying them. I prefer a physical CD over some downloaded MP3, and I still buy some artists´ original CD releases even if I´ve already downloaded some of their stuff for free.

Downloading songs does not mean that I won´t buy the original release in its physical form.

vainandy said:

The general public needs to be more informed of some of these blogs where they can download it for free.

You's be so crazy!

RE: So, this means Prince has been proven wrong once again.

Not really, they're giving percentages. Look at the actual dollar amounts and they're not anywhere close to rebounding from industry highs (which just isn't likely to happen ever).

[Edited 7/7/11 10:24am]

KoolEaze said:

CDs should be much cheaper. They make a huge profit with CDs, the cost of manufacturing is pretty low compared to vinyl and they are ridiculously overpriced. I still buy CDs but much less than I used to. If CDs were cheaper, more people would keep buying them. I prefer a physical CD over some downloaded MP3, and I still buy some artists´ original CD releases even if I´ve already downloaded some of their stuff for free.

Downloading songs does not mean that I won´t buy the original release in its physical form.

This is what the record companies never understood. They got greedy and they are reaping the whirlwind. The cost went down but the price went up.

I have a feeling Beyonce is going to end up taking credit for this week's trend.

KoolEaze said:

CDs should be much cheaper. They make a huge profit with CDs, the cost of manufacturing is pretty low compared to vinyl and they are ridiculously overpriced. I still buy CDs but much less than I used to. If CDs were cheaper, more people would keep buying them. I prefer a physical CD over some downloaded MP3, and I still buy some artists´ original CD releases even if I´ve already downloaded some of their stuff for free.

Downloading songs does not mean that I won´t buy the original release in its physical form.

It's not the CD you are buying, its the music. CD's are cheap to make but the music on the album takes a very long time to create. From the initial idea to a completed recording even for just the simplest song can take days, weeks or even months. People spend a lot of time creating these albums, not to mention the thousands of hours they have spent practicing their instrument/voice to get it to such a level and the amount of time they spend practicing songwriting.

These people work very, very hard. And they have a job that is probably one of the most important jobs in the world because without music, the world would be a much darker place. Music is priceless, but these people deserve every penny they earn and a lot of them deserve much more money than they get.

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/ptP0Y.jpg[/img:$uid]

Is it any wonder artists are going the indie route? The labels garner the lion's share of the earnings from music sold.

TheScouser said:

These people work very, very hard. And they have a job that is probably one of the most important jobs in the world because without music, the world would be a much darker place. Music is priceless, but these people deserve every penny they earn and a lot of them deserve much more money than they get.

The performers generally don't get paid from record sales anyway. Very few are rich. In the old days, singers and bands weren't paid money, but got cars, furs, women, booze, drugs, etc. from the record company.

Identity said:

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/ptP0Y.jpg[/img:$uid]

Is it any wonder artists are going the indie route? The labels garner the lion's share of the earnings from music sold.

Where are the writers in this? I always thought they got a pretty big piece of it.

Start a small label , publish your music and go out on tour. That's the formula for success.

robertlove said:

Identity said:

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/ptP0Y.jpg[/img:$uid]

Is it any wonder artists are going the indie route? The labels garner the lion's share of the earnings from music sold.

Where are the writers in this? I always thought they got a pretty big piece of it.

The label pays the publisher who in turn pays the writer a share of the royalty.

Identity said:

robertlove said:

Where are the writers in this? I always thought they got a pretty big piece of it.

The label pays the publisher who in turn pays the writer a share of the royalty.

That is a SAD equation.

How so, GC? The record label is diligent about recouping its "investment".

robertlove said:

Where are the writers in this? I always thought they got a pretty big piece of it.

If they don't own their copyrights, they don't make much. A songwriter for hire gets a flat fee or a salary to write songs. The salaried songwriter was more common in the 1950's and 1960's though. I guess today, a ghostwriter might be a similar thing. The publishing company generally takes half. Also the song has to sell a lot to make any money. That's why many writers are willing to do deals with people like Colonel Tom Parker. The writer will make more money if Elvis recorded a song than with an unknown, because there is automatic sales with him.

Identity said:

How so, GC? The record label is diligent about recouping its "investment".

How so? These days the WORK is primarily done by the artist.

The ONLY way 2 go in my book is an independent artist.

robertlove said:

Identity said:

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/ptP0Y.jpg[/img:$uid]

Is it any wonder artists are going the indie route? The labels garner the lion's share of the earnings from music sold.

Where are the writers in this? I always thought they got a pretty big piece of it.

they are since this is a BAND breakdown, alot of bands really always write their shit so i think that may be why the equation is like that.

But lets take a so called POP STAR that doesnt write at all, is just the face.

Label:60%

Distributions/iTunes:10%

Writer:20%

Producer:8%

Artist:2%

Well, that's just great! After all, that's all that matters anyway, right?

KoolEaze said:

CDs should be much cheaper. They make a huge profit with CDs, the cost of manufacturing is pretty low compared to vinyl and they are ridiculously overpriced. I still buy CDs but much less than I used to. If CDs were cheaper, more people would keep buying them. I prefer a physical CD over some downloaded MP3, and I still buy some artists´ original CD releases even if I´ve already downloaded some of their stuff for free.

Downloading songs does not mean that I won´t buy the original release in its physical form.

Always the Argument but it holds no water and here is why. CDS when they were on average MORE money and their were the retailers still that HAD to charge more due to label costs (sam goody,fye,tower and virgin) CD sales were at an all time High, look at the years in the mid 90's all the way to 2001. CDS were on fire with sales, it had to do with many things, ONE being the absence of singles, for the most part but also the absence of the internet.

Sorry to say even if a cd cost 5bucks people would still go for free most of the time. True it looks as if every person you see has an mp3 or iPod, but ask Steve Jobs of APPLE how many iPod owners use the Itunes Store, about 3% of music on iPods is bought at the store and less than ten percent on average was even BOUGHT. going digital was the demise, just like the 80 minute CD was the death of really STRONG albums.

PRICE has nothing to do with this also because look at MOVIES what do they cost now? 13 dollars to go to one right? something like that, now that is insane and it has NEVER dropped or even stayed the same, its risen constantly, but the reason no one complains and movies still make money is because downloading hasnt affected it, you arent going to find a perfect copy of a movie HD and all a month before its release with the ease that U do with music, i can type in artists that no one gives a rats ass about and have their new cd in 5 minutes from a few 100 websites, MOVIES havent been hurt like that, the worst they have had to deal with is the dude on 34th street in NYC with a blanket selling a 5 movie that just came out, that doesnt hurt the industry cause most of those copies are ok the first 5 minutes then you see and hear everyone else in the theatre, but no one ever bitches about that, and yet they would pay 5 dollars for a shiity dvd copy.

So again PRICING isnt an issue, and sorry but niether is the talent. what is the issue, is the availabilty the marketing, the closures of all forms of retail (real music stores) and the birth of the net, at the end of the day, ask a person would they pay 7-9 dollars for a new cd or nothing and get it off the net, MOST would pay nothing, and that isnt because of price, music just isnt that improtant anymore.

Graycap23 said:

Identity said:

How so, GC? The record label is diligent about recouping its "investment".

How so? These days the WORK is primarily done by the artist.

The ONLY way 2 go in my book is an independent artist.

that's the same thing my professor said. He encouraged artists to go independent or simply get a distribution deal

bboy87 said:

Graycap23 said:

How so? These days the WORK is primarily done by the artist.

The ONLY way 2 go in my book is an independent artist.

that's the same thing my professor said. He encouraged artists to go independent or simply get a distribution deal

Its good advice, BUT i know people think its the HolyGrail and its not, with the decline in live shows and people going to them, that was the bread and butter, indie or not. Its the old saying you got to have something behind you to make something, and that doesnt have to be a label per say, but you need something to maintain a + income, you cant always operate at a loss, which alot of bands starting out DO.

Identity said:

[img:$uid]http://i.imgur.com/ptP0Y.jpg[/img:$uid]

Is it any wonder artists are going the indie route? The labels garner the lion's share of the earnings from music sold.

The labels also happen to do the lion's share of financing the recording, distributing it, and promoting it. In other words, making it a career for the artist.